THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 6057. June 27, 2006.]

PETER T. DONTON , complainant, vs . ATTY. EMMANUEL O.

TANSINGCO , respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO , J : p

The Case
This is a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco
("respondent") for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1, 1 Rules 1.01 2
and 1.02 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code").
The Facts
In his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton ("complainant") stated that he
led a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsi cation of a public document 4 against Duane
O. Stier ("Stier"), Emelyn A. Maggay ("Maggay") and respondent, as the notary public who
notarized the Occupancy Agreement.
The disbarment complaint arose when respondent led a counter-charge for perjury
5 against complainant. Respondent, in his affidavit-complaint, stated that:
5. The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT dated September 11, 1995 was prepared
and notarized by me under the following circumstances :

A. Mr. Duane O. Stier is the owner and long-time resident of a real

property located at No. 33 Don Jose Street, Bgy. San Roque,
Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City.
B. Sometime in September 1995, Mr. Stier — a U.S. citizen and
thereby disqualified to own real property in his name —
agreed that the property be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a
Filipino.

C. Mr. Stier, in the presence of Mr. Donton, requested me to prepare

several documents that would guarantee recognition of him being
the actual owner of the property despite the transfer of title in the
name of Mr. Donton.
D. For this purpose, I prepared, among others, the OCCUPANCY
AGREEMENT, recognizing Mr. Stier's free and undisturbed use of the
property for his residence and business operations. The
OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier
had extended to Mr. Donton. 6

Complainant averred that respondent's act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement,

despite knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is disquali ed to own real property
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 in his name, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code.
Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something in
violation of law and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme. DTCSHA

In his Comment dated 19 August 2003, respondent claimed that complainant led
the disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainant's counsel, Atty.
Bonifacio A. Alentajan, 7 because respondent refused to act as complainant's witness in
the criminal case against Stier and Maggay. Respondent admitted that he "prepared and
notarized" the Occupancy Agreement and asserted its genuineness and due execution.
In a Resolution dated 1 October 2003, the Court referred the matter to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
In her Report dated 26 February 2004 ("Report"), Commissioner Milagros V. San
Juan ("Commissioner San Juan") of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found
respondent liable for taking part in a "scheme to circumvent the constitutional prohibition
against foreign ownership of land in the Philippines." Commissioner San Juan
recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for two years and the
cancellation of his commission as Notary Public.
In Resolution No. XVI-2004-222 dated 16 April 2004, the IBP Board of Governors
adopted, with modi cation, the Report and recommended respondent's suspension from
the practice of law for six months.
On 28 June 2004, the IBP Board of Governors forwarded the Report to the Court as
provided under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B 8 of the Rules of Court.
On 28 July 2004, respondent led a motion for reconsideration before the IBP.
Respondent stated that he was already 76 years old and would already retire by 2005 after
the termination of his pending cases. He also said that his practice of law is his only
means of support for his family and his six minor children.
In a Resolution dated 7 October 2004, the IBP denied the motion for reconsideration
because the IBP had no more jurisdiction on the case as the matter had already been
referred to the Court.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve
de ance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. 9 A lawyer who assists a client
in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justi es
disciplinary action against the lawyer. 1 0
By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified
from owning real property. 1 1 Yet, in his motion for reconsideration, 1 2 respondent
admitted that he caused the transfer of ownership to the parcel of land to Stier.
Respondent, however, aware of the prohibition, quickly recti ed his act and transferred the
title in complainant's name. But respondent provided "some safeguards" by preparing
several documents, 1 3 including the Occupancy Agreement, that would guarantee Stier's
recognition as the actual owner of the property despite its transfer in complainant's name.
In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 prohibition against foreign ownership of lands 1 4 by preparing said documents. AacDHE

Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the
Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against
foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an
unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his o ce, for which he may be
suspended. 1 5
I n Balinon v. De Leon , 1 6 respondent Atty. De Leon was suspended from the
practice of law for three years for preparing an a davit that virtually permitted him to
commit concubinage. In In re: Santiago , 1 7 respondent Atty. Santiago was suspended
from the practice of law for one year for preparing a contract which declared the spouses
to be single again after nine years of separation and allowed them to contract separately
subsequent marriages.
WHEREFORE, we nd respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco GUILTY of violation
of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we
SUSPEND respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco from the practice of law for SIX
MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the O ce of the Bar Con dant to be
appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all courts in the country for their information
and guidance. CADHcI

SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio Morales, Tinga and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
2. Rule 1.01. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

3. Rule 1.02. — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or
lessening confidence in the legal system.

4. Docketed as I.S. No. 02-2520 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina City.
5. Docketed as I.S. No. 03-0474.

6. Rollo, pp. 15-16. Emphasis in the original.

7. Respondent, in turn, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan
docketed as CBD Case No. 03-112.

8. Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors. —

xxx xxx xxx

(b) If the Board, by vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole
record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
9. E. PINEDA, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 35-36 (1994).

10. In re: Terrell, 2 Phil. 266 (1903).

11. Rollo, p. 15.
12. Id. at 99.
13. In respondent's 30 December 2002 affidavit, he enumerated all the documents he
prepared for Stier:

A. A Deed of Sale over the property, which Mr. Stier could consolidate in favor of
any person of his choice at anytime;

[Note: The deed of Sale had an open date, and the name of the transferee was to be
indicated by Mr. Stier, at his discretion.]

B. Occupancy Agreement, recognizing Mr. Stier's free and undisturbed use of the
property for his residence and business operations;
[Note: The Occupancy Agreement was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier had
extended to Mr. Donton.]
C. Real Estate Mortgage over the property, which Mr. Stier could enforce anytime;
and
D. Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney to sell, mortgage or lease the property,
which Mr. Stier could exercise anytime.
14. Article XII, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be

transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

15. In re: Santiago, 70 Phil. 66 (1940).

16. 94 Phil. 277 (1954).

17. Supra.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com